Don's blog

For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone so be more circumspect or
google will know about it. Either stick to the issues, or fill in the
petition. Which is about my site, not me. There's Carsten, Aidan,
Big John from Ohio, and you could be next, ...if you hurry. All of
them by the way with nothing to say about what's on my site. All just
like you, intent on calling people names. What does your mother say
when you get home? Doesn't she read your posts?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 12 Dec 2004 08:45:09 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don
findlay"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone

Who told you that?

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...0dc99cdca62c3a
Fill it in, ..I'm going to bed.

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone so be more circumspect or
google will know about it.

Umm, hardly.

And who cares if google knows. Note that Usenet != Google.

Either stick to the issues, or fill in the
petition. Which is about my site, not me. There's Carsten, Aidan,
Big John from Ohio, and you could be next, ...if you hurry. All of
them by the way with nothing to say about what's on my site. All just
like you, intent on calling people names. What does your mother say
when you get home? Doesn't she read your posts?

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 12 Dec 2004 08:45:09 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don
findlay"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone

Who told you that?


http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...0dc99cdca62c3a
Fill it in, ..I'm going to bed.

Umm, so ****ing what? This ain't google. Get a grip.

On 12 Dec 2004 08:45:09 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don findlay"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone

Who told you that?

On 12 Dec 2004 08:58:37 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don findlay"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone

Who told you that?

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...0dc99cdca62c3a

I don't read that newsgroup. Stop cross-posting nonsense to
sci.space.policy, if you want to stay in your little cocoon.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 12 Dec 2004 08:45:09 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don
findlay"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way
as to indicate that:

Christopher M. Jones wrote:
For what it's worth, I never called you a crank, I
called you "bat **** crazy". Please note the
difference.

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about
calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone

Who told you that?



http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...0dc99cdca62c3a
Fill it in, ..I'm going to bed.

Umm, so ****ing what? This ain't google. Get a grip.

Gee, ..those rocket scientists are rough people. Evidently the Earth
sciences have no role in planetary exploration. So what are they doing
then, ..other than adding a belligerent dimension to '****ing it up
against the wall'? (Your money.)

"don findlay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...0dc99cdca62c3a
Fill it in, ..I'm going to bed.

Umm, so ****ing what? This ain't google. Get a grip.

Gee, ..those rocket scientists are rough people.

Yeah, we like to get our facts straight. Just because you post from google,
doesn't mean others do and doesn't mean that the above abuse form will do
diddly.


Evidently the Earth
sciences have no role in planetary exploration.

So says you.

So what are they doing
then, ..other than adding a belligerent dimension to '****ing it up
against the wall'? (Your money.)

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 12 Dec 2004 08:58:37 -0800, in a place far, far away, "don
findlay"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Well, either way you're setting a bad example, going about
calling
people names. This is an abuse-free zone

Who told you that?


http://groups-beta.google.com/groups...0dc99cdca62c3a

I don't read that newsgroup. Stop cross-posting nonsense to
sci.space.policy, if you want to stay in your little cocoon.

This is the conclusion from the cocoon of sci.geo.geology of two years
of postings. We (i.e, the only bloke interested in a discussion on
this over there) thought y'all should know. And where it's all going.
(Now that we've got worked out the really important thing about who's
posting from where, that is, and whether or not abuse is allowed.)


**Conclusion**:- Plate tectonics is founded on unwarranted
assumptions and overlooks numerous first-order aspects of global
geology that should have been evident from its inception. The model
should never have been formulated. It has grown into a potpourri of
ad hoc explanations of monstrous proportions, that either directly
contravene the geological facts, contradict each other, and/or are in
some or various ways disconnected. That these dislocations are
extolled against this background of omission and contrivance as
opportunities for "more research" is an indictment of the profession
and a serious misuse of funds. The model should be discarded in its
entirety as unworkable. There are no redeeming features worthy of
retention.

By comparison Earth expansion presents a far more integrated and
harmonious picture of global geology consequent on the facts, and an
exciting vision of the Earth sciences every bit as portentous as the
changes from flat Earth-ism and geocentrism to the heliocentric system
of the Renaissance. It is precisely because no known mechanism exists
for the apparent growth of the Earth that every effort should be
directed to exploring the many manifestations of the geological facts
of its expression. The prima facie conclusion that the Earth is
expanding offers unparallelled opportunities for formulation of a
geological model that will lay the firm foundation to provide the
certainties necessary to address the theoretical connection between the
manner by which matter may come into existence and its physical
expression. Earth expansion is unquestionably the foundation of the
Earth Sciences for the next millenium. Plate tectonics is dead.
See?